However, there are flaws with the premise of the ‘nothing to hide’
argument. It’s flawed enough that we should not address it directly,
instead we should be pointing out those flaws. Daniel Solove has
written a paper, a book, and an article on this.

The issue with the ‘nothing to hide’ argument is that when presented
well, it actually appears pretty strong. There may be specific
situations we can cite to counter, but this feels like a rear-guard
action, around the details.

The ‘nothing to hide’ argument frames the value of privacy as purely
allowing people to hide things they’d rather others didn’t know. If
that is the extent of its value, then it is easier to add more
surveillance with more intrusive measures as the national security
value gained through these can easily be justified against the limited
value lost in reducing privacy.

Imagine if a highly evolved surveillance apparatus of a government
somewhere was revealed — tough, I know. In response to the
out-cry, imagine if the government confirmed its existence, and then
proposed a solution — it is more of a stretch from here. Imagine
if they proposed a system of ‘surveillance exemptions’. An
independent body was set up. People could apply to this body for
special status (activist, journalist, etc) and if they were approved
then the surveillance apparatus was then required to destroy any
information collected and to not collect any further. Thus freeing
people on an as-needs basis from privacy loss.

This is a thought experiment, so just ignore for the moment the
question of how networks of collected information would be managed in
the face of exemptions. Also, this whole discussion is about how to
make a government actually follow through on their promises, so that
criticism doesn’t stand either.

Would you accept this proposal as a reasonable compromise to ensure
those who need it can retain their privacy?

The point is that ‘nothing to hide’ is reductionist about
privacy. There is more value from privacy than just what it implies.
If we participate in the debate by only discussing the cases where it
is legitimate (in the eyes of society) to have something to hide, then
we are validating that limited value assessment of privacy.

Solove points to some examples of the further value of privacy. To his
set I would add personal identity.

Your personal identity controls and directs your interactions with
other people, and particularly what about yourself you’re likely to
reveal. We have complex identities with different facets. We’ll
publish some things on a public Twitter account, and others on our
personal Facebook pages. Privacy is the tool we use to maintain
control of our own identity. With our privacy we retain control over
what is seen and, as a result, how we are perceived.

This is why privacy invasions are viscerally creepy events; why it is
called an ‘invasion’; why we react to it so emotionally. And why
arguments defending our right to privacy need to be deeper than
allowing us to hide secrets, however legitimate.